15 Priorities for Wind-Waves Research: An Australian Perspective

Abstract

The Australian marine research, industry, and stakeholder community has recently undertaken an extensive collaborative process to identify the highest national priorities for wind-waves research. This was undertaken under the auspices of the Forum for Operational Oceanography Surface Waves Working Group. The main steps in the process were first, soliciting possible research questions from the community via an online survey; second, reviewing the questions at a face-to-face workshop; and third, online ranking of the research questions by individuals. This process resulted in 15 identified priorities, covering research activities and the development of infrastructure. The top five priorities are 1) enhanced and updated nearshore and coastal bathymetry; 2) improved understanding of extreme sea states; 3) maintain and enhance the in situ buoy network; 4) improved data access and sharing; and 5) ensemble and probabilistic wave modeling and forecasting. In this paper, each of the 15 priorities is discussed in detail, providing insight into why each priority is important, and the current state of the art, both nationally and internationally, where relevant. While this process has been driven by Australian needs, it is likely that the results will be relevant to other marine-focused nations.

Research Priorities for Coastal Geoscience and Engineering: A Collaborative Exercise in Priority Setting From Australia

“…We used a four-part approach, based on the methodology developed by Sutherland et al (2011), to identify and rank the priorities. This method was chosen as it is an iterative method that engages the community of interest throughout the process, is democratic, and has previously been used to identify research priorities in a range of other disciplines including within marine science (e.g., Fissel et al, 2012;Greenslade et al, 2020; among many others). A summary of the process is presented in Figure 2.…”

“…Further, the priorities were structured such that they are achievable at the project level, i.e., by a small number of researchers or stakeholders in 3-5 years. This differs from other studies aiming to identify priority research questions in that they often cover a very broad field (e.g., ocean/marine/coastal research as a whole; Rees et al, 2013;Rudd, 2014;Jarvis and Young, 2019), assess priorities at a global scale (e.g., Rudd and Lawton, 2013;Rudd, 2014Rudd, , 2017, pose very wide-ranging questions (e.g., Wisz et al, 2020), provide relative rankings of priorities rather than absolute rankings (e.g., Rudd and Lawton, 2013;Rudd, 2014;Greenslade et al, 2020), or present a list of priorities without rankings or scores (e.g., Jarvis and Young, 2019;Wisz et al, 2020). While these alternative approaches have their advantages (e.g., Best Worst Scaling can be advantageous when trying to compare a large number of research questions), they do not identify specific, actionable projects that could be achieved within individual jurisdictions nor rankings for these priorities that also reflect perceived urgency, a gap that this study sought to fill.…”

“…It encompasses both researchers (basic and applied) and practitioners that specialise in coastal oceanography, sedimentary geology, geomorphology, geochemistry, sedimentology, and engineering, as well as coastal zone managers and communicators, who have important roles in making decisions that balance the needs of communities, industry, and the natural environment (Figure 1; Vila-Concejo et al, 2018). Greenslade et al (2020) recently identified 15 research priorities for wind wave research in Australia, however, their analysis focussed on one aspect of oceanography and does not represent the full breadth of CGE research. Here, we present the results of a collaborative research priority setting exercise for the CGE discipline within Australia.…”

Identifying oceanographic conditions conducive to coastal impacts on temperate open coastal beaches and the importance of empirical impact data

“…Beyond just impact-based data, there is a demand for increased coastal observations more generally. Priority areas identi ed across Australia have included improved wave and sea state observations facilitated through the maintenance and enhancement of the wave buoy network, long-term beach and coastline monitoring, mapping nearshore and coastal bathymetry, conducting geomorphological assessments, mapping coastal ecosystems and identifying thresholds for impacts in the coastal zone (COAG 2006;IMOS 2016;Greenslade et al 2020). There is also a need for a more coordinated approach to data collection, storage and sharing.…”

“…However, very few have quanti ed the physical drivers in a way that facilitates national or regional warning and monitoring for these hazards. This is likely due to signi cant gaps in driver and impact data (Greenslade et al 2020) and the complexity in calculating important local scale characteristics, such as nearshore wave transformations (O'Grady et al 2019a). This is further made complex by changes in the total water level, including GMSL and ESL, not occurring homogeneously around the world's coastlines due to variability in the natural system (Kirezci et al 2020).…”